5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Porvoo.
6.  In 1986 the applicant became allergic to ink used in her work as a window-dresser and decorator and was diagnosed as asthmatic. She was granted a rehabilitation allowance in order to be able to change career and to qualify for a new profession. From 1989 onwards she worked as an accountant.
7.  In 1997 her asthma became worse. The insurance company granted her a temporary accident pension in 1998 based on her annual income in 1986 when the asthma first started.
8.  The applicant appealed to the Accident Board (tapaturmalautakunta, olycksfallsnämnden), demanding that the accident pension be calculated on the basis of her income as an accountant instead of her income in 1986 since she was no longer employed in the same work as when the occupational disease was diagnosed. Moreover, she stated in her appeal that she was undergoing further tests for asthma in order to find out if she was suffering from a new occupational disease.
9.  On 14 January 1999 the Accident Board issued a decision rejecting her appeal with regard to the income. In so far as the applicant demanded compensation on grounds of having contracted a new occupational disease in her new work, the Accident Board referred the matter to the insurance company for consideration.
10.  On 18 August 1999 the insurance company refused her request for a further allowance as it found that, according to the most recent medical opinion, the applicant was not suffering from a new occupational disease and that her symptoms were caused by her previously diagnosed asthma. The applicant disagreed and appealed to the Accident Board, submitting two medical opinions in support of her claim.
11.  On 12 January 2000 the Accident Board found that the medical opinions did not support the applicant’s claims and rejected her appeal.
12.  Represented by a lawyer, she appealed to the Insurance Court (vakuutusoikeus, försäkringsrätten), claiming that the decision should be quashed. The insurance company filed its observations with the court and the applicant was given an opportunity to reply. On 24 January 2002 the insurance company filed two further medical opinions dated 20 April 2001 and 8 November 2001.
13.  The Insurance Court upheld the decision on 11 June 2002, finding that the new evidence did not allow it to reach a different conclusion.
14.  On 10 July 2002 the applicant acquainted herself with the case file before the Insurance Court. According to the applicant, she saw in the case file an opinion prepared by J., a doctor on the Accident Board, as well as two medical opinions from the insurance company.
15.  The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen). She alleged that the Insurance Court had obtained two medical opinions from the insurance company and an opinion from J., a doctor on the Accident Board, which had not been communicated to her. She also claimed that the domestic decisions were inadequate, the medical opinions erroneous and the doctors biased.
16.  On 5 March 2003 she was refused leave to appeal.
17.  On 10 October 2003 the applicant again examined the case file before the Insurance Court. As she did not find J.’s opinion in the public part of the case file, she asked the Insurance Court to give her access to it. She repeated her allegation that she had seen the said opinion in the case file in July 2002, and said that it must have been subsequently removed.
18.  On 23 October 2003 the Insurance Court remitted the applicant’s request to the Accident Board, being the competent first-instance body.
19.  On 11 December 2003 the Accident Board rejected her application. It stated that the provisions of the Code on Judicial Procedure (oikeudenkäymiskaari, rättegångsbalken) on a judge’s professional conduct applied equally to the medical members of the Accident Board. Consequently, J.’s commentary was part of the Accident Board’s internal deliberations, and not a document which was made public even to the complainant.
20.  As the applicant did not appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen), the Accident Board’s decision became final on 11 December 2003.